Talk:Cleric
Spells per day there are no spells per day tables (that I can find) in the nwnwiki. should these be added to the class pages? or as separate ones? -- Jjjhhhlll 14:13, 21 Dec 2005 (PST) *I thought we did have those charts, but I sure can't find 'em. They're sorely needed. The class pages would be the best place I think. -- Austicke 14:21, 21 Dec 2005 (PST) :* adding these using the standard table format... the sorcerer spells per level page has different formatting. Perhaps that way is better. I don't want to manually enter all that markup :( -- Jjjhhhlll 14:22, 21 Dec 2005 (PST) Cleric domains Having all the domains listed in the Cleric page seems a bit cluttered. Wouldn't a Domains category be better? Otherwise where will the PRC domains go? --Countess Terra 09:41, 4 January 2006 (PST) *Good question. I don't mind a Cleric domains article or even a PRC cleric domains if we want to just keep that separate. -- Alec Usticke 21:49, 4 January 2006 (PST) *We could list the domain names, and link to an article for each domain from that.--Defunc7 12:00, 5 January 2006 (PST) :*''That still leaves the problem of where to put those domain pages. A separate category seems fitting.'' --Countess Terra 13:03, 5 January 2006 (PST) ::*Makes sense. Then the non-default stuff can go in a subcategory (like PRC domains). -- Alec Usticke 14:14, 5 January 2006 (PST) I'm going to create the domains as separate pages. Since I'm not sure how to create a category yet, I'll put them in feats. Anyone who knows how to create a category is free to put them in a Domains category. --Countess Terra 13:40, 11 January 2006 (PST) *Easy way to do it is to fake a page in the non-existant category with Category:Domains in an edit-preview and click to go to the "non-existant page edit". NWN2Wiki:Cleric#Available_domains with NWN2Wiki:Category:Domains is the NWN2 setup. --Defunc7 13:47, 11 January 2006 (PST) :*I'll try it. --Countess Terra 13:58, 11 January 2006 (PST) :*All the domains are now their own separate articles and there's now a link on the Cleric page to the Cleric domains category. --Countess Terra 14:27, 11 January 2006 (PST) Scribe scroll, brew potion, craft wand The Cleric does not (by default) get these feats. Fixing. --Countess Terra 09:39, 6 January 2006 (PST) Spell focus: necromancy? I don't see that the 2010/Jan/26 edit (Special abilities & feats note: "Cleric's should consider taking spell focus Necromancy as it affects almost all their spells") is accurate. Aside from the apostrophe issue, how would taking the necromancy spell focus feat affect "almost all cleric spells"? By my quick count, there are 19 general cleric necromancy spells (23 available with various domains) out of 126 general cleric spells (146 available with various domains). MrZork 18:09, January 27, 2010 (UTC) * By my (slightly different) quick count, there are 35 non-epic necromancy spells defined by BioWare, some of them not available to clerics, and 115 non-epic spells in Category:Cleric spells. (Are there spells missing from that category?) That puts an upper limit (probably well over-estimated) of 30% on the fraction of cleric spells that could be from the necromancy school, which I consider a far cry from "almost all". I don't see this note as being accurate. : Going to the minor issues, in addition to the apostrophe and capitalization issues, there's also the question of location. The comment is currently in the section for feats automatically given to the class. Since it would need to be moved (to the notes section) anyway, I think I'll remove it until someone comes up with a justification for it. --The Krit 01:40, January 28, 2010 (UTC) Server balance note I have some questions/concerns about the note (edit number 67425) recently added by . I think I'll just go through the note in order: # "Most online persistent world servers for NeverWinterNights" — Is this "most" based upon a reasonably large sample, or is it merely one person's experience on a few servers? # "don't properly balance their monsters," — the inclusion of "properly" strikes me as an attempt to inject more authority into the claim than is warranted. (I.e. who decided what constitutes "proper" when it comes to balancing?) # "often removing or not giving caster enemies the ability to dispel magic." — I can see how removing something could be a failure to balance, but isn't not adding something more about BioWare's attempts at balance than about a server's? # "This causes a huge advantage for players that make cleric characters, since they can just 'frontload' their buffs" — is this supposed to imply that other casters are not capable of "frontloading"? # "(front loading is when all buffs are casted in sequence before a dungeon is run)." — an explanation of the term "frontload" is good. Better would be to not invent a term in this context (so something more like "since they can just cast their buffs before entering a dungeon"). # "Some servers attempt to mitigate this by reducing the duration of buffs." — this sounds a lot like trying to balance things to me, which contradicts the opening claim. I will assume good faith, but if 72.197.85.180 cannot defend this note, I am inclined to remove it rather than try to transform it into something better. --The Krit (talk) 17:42, May 21, 2018 (UTC) * No reply for two weeks, so I've removed the note. --The Krit (talk) 02:23, June 5, 2018 (UTC)